Mitt Romney, Natural Born Citizenship, and Media Bias (5x Updated)

While I researched and wrote this article over the past week, The Post & Email published a story about a citizen who has challenged Mitt Romney’s eligibility for the presidency. The citizen argues that Mitt Romney’s father, George W. Romney, was a Mexican citizen according to Mexican law, by virtue of his birth in that country. The citizen further argues that it is incumbent upon Mitt Romney to prove that his father naturalized in the USA by the time of Mitt’s birth, in 1947.

[George W.] Romney’s grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States with their children because of the federal government’s opposition to polygamy. His maternal grandfather was Helaman Pratt (1846–1909), who presided over the Mormon mission in Mexico City before moving to the state of Chihuahua and who was the son of original Mormon apostle Parley P. Pratt (1807–1857). … Romney’s parents were American citizens Gaskell Romney (1871–1955) and Anna Amelia Pratt (1876-1926); natives of Utah, they married in 1895 in Mexico and lived in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua (one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico) where George was born on July 8, 1907.They practiced monogamy. George had three older brothers, two younger brothers, and a younger sister. Gaskell Romney was a successful carpenter, house builder, and farmer who headed the most prosperous family in the colony.

The family returned to the USA when George was 5 years old. In the 1920 census, George W. Romney was listed with his parents, Gaskill [sic] and Anna Romney, in Rexburg City, Idaho. All members of the family were listed as US citizens.George was correctly reported as born in Mexico.

As I looked further into the issue of Mitt Romney’s eligibility, I was struck by the amazing difference in the way the media handled the dispute over George W.Romney’s natural born citizenship as compared to the massive media blackout, especially during campaign 2008, of the raging dispute about Barack Hussein Obama’s questionable natural born citizenship.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

The New York Times devoted quite a bit of space to questions surrounding George Romney’s eligibility for the presidency. One would think they’d consider the questions about Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibilityas crucial for an informed electorate.

How the “Grey Lady” has fallen!

Following, in chronological order, are excerpts from stories in the New York Times about George W. Romney’s natural born citizenship:

NY Times May 15, 1967 (by Earl Caldwell)

[Democrat] Representative Emanuel Celler expressed “serious doubts” yesterday as to whether Gov. George Romney of Michigan is eligible for the Presidency. Mr. Celler called it a “wide open question” and suggested that the Republican party appoint some sort of commission to “come up with an answer to this situation. … Mr. Celler, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that although he had no plans to challenge Mr. Romney’s eligibility, the question should not be allowed to go unanswered. … Most constitutional experts have held that he is eligible since his parents were United States citizens. … The Romneys never gave up their citizenship and returned to the United States … George Romney was 5 years old. … Mr. Celler suggested that a commission to rule on Mr. Romney’s eligibility be composed of “eminent professors of law, retired jurists and lawyers.

A “wide open question” that “should not be allowed to go unanswered.”

NY Times May 16, 1967

Governor Rockefeller said yesterday that Gov. George Romney of Michigan could run for President, even though he was born in Mexico. … Rockefeller … held that the question of Governor Romney’s eligibility … was “an early case of politics. … It’s a matter of law. … Romney and all of his friends are satisfied that he is qualified. I don’t see why you need a commission.”

NY Times May 17, 1967

Governor George Romney said today that he was certain he was eligible to be President of the United States even though born in Mexico. … Former Vice President Richard M. Nixon said here last night that the Supreme Court would uphold George Romney’s eligibility to become President, even though he was born in Mexico. The Court, he said, would never interpret the Constitution as meaning that Americans born outside the United States would be barred from the Presidency.

NY Times October 14, 1967

Gov. George Romney of Michigan is constitutionally ineligible to be President because he was born in Mexico, according to a two-part article to be published next week in The New York Law Journal. … [Romney] is ineligible because he is not a “natural born citizen” says the article by Isidor Blum, a former professor of constitutional law at New York Law School. … Blum … asserts that the framers of the Constitution intended to exclude all foreign born persons from the Presidency. … Gaskell and Anna Romney were American citizens, and their son became a citizen at birth. … The issue of whether a child born of American parents abroad can become President has never been settled in the courts. In the past, the Justice Department has cited the writings of the late Edward S. Corwin of Princeton University as the best available opinion on the subject. Professor Corwin wrote that the term “natural born citizen” is “confined to persons born on the soil of a country,” … But Professor Corwin added that other legal principles stated that nationality was based on parentage. Professor Corwin concluded: “Should the American people ever choose for President a person born abroad of American parents, it is highly improbable that any other constitutional agency would venture to challenge their decision.” Blum … concludes that the framers of the Constitution meant “natural born” to mean “native born.” … One of Mr. Romney’s principal advisers said in a telephone interview … “We’ve given this a fair amount of consideration, and we’ve concluded that he is eligible for the office. Myron Kandel, editor of the paper, said he had invited a dozen lawyers and law professors to comment on Mr. Romney’s eligibility. “We think this is an extremely significant question. … This dialogue is necessary. What if Romney gets elected and the courts decide he can’t be President?”

What if? Indeed!

NY Times October 15, 1967

Governor Romney said today that the question of his constitutional eligibility for office had been studied by lawyers and that he believed it posed no problem. … Governor Romney said that he did not have to file any papers to become an American citizen since both his parents had been born in the United States. …

NY Times November 4, 1967

A court test of Gov. George Romney’s legal eligibility to serve as President of the United States is expected early in the 1968 New Hampshire Republican primary campaign. If the issue is not raised by Republicans who support Richard M. Nixon or Gov. Ronald Reagan for the nomination, Mr. Romney’s backers plan to go to court themselves to try to lay the question permanently to rest. … Article II of the Federal Constitution requires that the President be a “natural-born citizen.” There has never been a legal test of whether this language would bar from the White House a child of Americancitizens born outside the United States. Republicans who plan to enter Mr. Romney’s name in the New Hampshire primary, the first of the campaign, early next year are confident that the courts will uphold his eligibility to serve as President. They are concerned, however, that any doubt on this score could reduce Mr. Romney’s vote in the important primary on the theory thatvoters might be reluctant to vote for a man who might later be disqualified by the courts. Romney supporters in the state believe that a court action may be brought by William Loeb, publisher of The Manchester Union Leader, the largest daily newspaper in the state. … If Mr. Loeb and his allies do not go to court to enjoin the New Hampshire Secretary of State from listing Governor Romney on the primary ballot, one or more of the Governor’s Republican supporters in the state almost certainly will. Mr. Romney’s legal advisers believe such an action could be brought by an individual Republican voter, rather than another candidate, and that the courts would decide it as long as the Romney forces agreed to waive any procedural objections, which they would do in the interest of a quick decision. If the lawsuit were filed immediately after the earliest date for getting on the New Hampshire ballot, Jan. 12, Romney advisers believe the State Supreme Court would rule well before the balloting March 12. … Mr. Romney is reported not to be particularly enthusiastic about the court test on the ground that it tends to interject his religion into the political arena. He is being urged, however, that it is vital to settle the eligibility question as early in the Presidential competition as possible.

Wiser heads. More honest individuals.

NY Times November 5, 1967

‘Chihuahua Romney’?Foreign events, usually related to the Vietnam war, have bedevilled the Presidential aspirations of Gov. George Romney of Michigan. But last week he encountered troubles in the form of another foreign event–his birth. He was born July 8, 1907, in Chihuahua, Mexico, where his American parents were living in an exile Mormon community. As the son of an American father, he was entitled by statute to American citizenship at birth. So there was no need for him to be naturalized when his parents brought him, as a small boy, to the United States. These events now seem likely to provide the first test in the nation’s history of a provision of Article II, Section I of the Constitution, which says, “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of President. … Last week’s rumors from the hot-stove circuit in New Hampshire had it that both friends and foes of Mr. Romney’s candidacy are considering court tests of this issue … If the foes do not sue to keep his name off the ballot, the friends might, with the intention of putting the question permanently to rest.

NY Times November 15, 1967

A New York lawyer who has been a personal friend of Gov. George Romney for many years declares that contrary to some legal opinion the Michigan Governor is eligible to be President of the United States despite his birth in Mexico. Eustace Seligman, senior partner in Sullivan & Cromwell, makes the assertion in an article in today’s issue of the New York Law Journal. … “Nationality at birth may result from birth in a territory of the state, jure soli [by right of the soil], or from birth outside of the territory of the state to parents who are nationals of the state–referred to as nationality by blood, or jure sanguinis.” This principle, according to Mr. Seligman, establishes that the phrase “natural-born citizen” covers both categories and is not limited to birth in the United States.

NY Times January 27, 1968

Campaign aides of Gov. George Romney called today for prompt ruling by the Oregon Attorney General on whether Mr. Romney’s Mexican birth bars him from the Presidency. … The Federal Constitution requires the President to be a “natural born” citizen. The question whether this requires a candidate to be physically born in the United States has been raised repeatedly during Mr. Romney’s campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination.”

NY Times February 6, 1968

Attorney General Robert Y. Thornton refused to rule today whether Gov. George Romney was eligible to appear on the ballot in the Oregon Presidential primary. The ruling had been requested by the Secretary of State Clay Myers because of Governor Romney’s birth in Mexico. … Mr. Thornton said that Mr. Myers did not have to concern himself with the question in determining who shall appear on the ballot. In Oregon, the Secretary of State places on the ballot those persons generally advocated or recognized in the national news as candidates. In an article in The New York Law Journal last November, Eustace Seligman, senior partner in the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, said that Mr. Romney was eligible … despite his birth in Mexico. He cited … international law that holds that the nationality of a child born outside the parents’ country may be determined by the nationality of the parents. However, in earlier issues of the journal, Isidor Blum, a former professor of constitutional law at New York Law School, and Representative Emanuel Celler, … questioned Mr. Romney’s eligibility.”

OTHER NEWSPAPERS

The New York Times was not alone in covering the issue of George W. Romney’s natural born citizenship. The Jefferson City, Missouri, Post Tribune hadthis to say, way back in 1962:

Two never-defined words in the U.S. Constitution are coming up for increasing discussion as the name of George W. Romney figures in the presidential talk for 1964. The Constitution requires a president to be a “natural born” citizen of this country. Does automaker Romney, who was born in Mexico of American parents, fill this bill. Romney himself says he does not know. … Romney’s grandparents migrated from the United States to Mexico in 1886 to escape what they considered political persecution of themselves and others of their Mormon faith. Their son Gaskell was 14 at the time… It is certain that a foreign citizen is not eligible … It also is certain that a person born abroad of foreign parents but later naturalized is also ineligible. But many hold that a person born of American parents is a natural born U.S. citizen.

That story goes on to explain that Herbert Hoover, although overseas doing charitable work for years prior to his election, thus not meeting the Constitution’s 14-year residency requirement, was not challenged. The author asserts that the election of 1928 led to a consensus that the 14 years of residency need not be contiguous or immediately prior to election.

The Mansfield, Ohio, News Journal addressed the topic on May 20, 1967:

Government agencies have received so many inquiries about the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” in the Constitution that special studies of the matter will be issued shortly. The question arises in connection with the eligibility of George Romney to become a candidate for President. … Romney was born July 8, 1907, in Chihuahua, Mexico, 200 miles from the u.S. border. He was the son of U.S. citizens Gaskell and Anna (Pratt) Romney… When Romney was five years old, American families were expelled from Mexico by Pancho Villa … The Romneys, who finally settled in Salt Lake City, never relinquished their American citizenship. … Anybody who entertains ideas about sidetracking Romney had better begin reaching for the switch now.”

[T]here is a chance that unless some determination is made meanwhile, the eligibility of Gov. George Romney (R., Mich.) to be President could be challenged at several points next year, beginning with the earliest presidential preference primary in New Hampshire … Any citizen, apparently, could go to court to question whether Romney — born of American parents in Mexico in 1907 — actually is a “natural born” citizen … Neither law nor the Constitution question Romney’s American citizenship because he was born of American parents. … If the challenge were not made on Romney’s entrance into a presidential primary, it might come at the time … of nomination or election. … Romney himself has announced he is not going to seek any formal inquiry on whether his birth in Mexico 50 years ago makes him ineligible for the presidency. He seems already to have concluded he is eligible.

According to the rule in Wong Kim Ark, then, Governor Romney is a “naturalized” citizen, being born abroad of American parents who were neither diplomats nor soldiers. He is a citizen by virtue of an act of Congress that naturalizes all such children. And he is not a “natural born citizen” of the sort specified in Article III of the Constitution. The Wong Kim Ark interpretation of these terms was sustained by federal court decisions … it could be altered only by Constitutional amendment (which is most unlikely) or by a radically different interpretation of Article III by the federal courts …

Thus, this “commentator” declared that George W. Romney WAS indeed a naturalized citizen by virtue of our “favorite” ruling (once banned from mention on this blog): Wong Kim Ark! He further warned that if the issue was not settled:

… Republicans would take the dread riskof choosing a candidate who might be disqualified by the courts. Governor Nelson Rockefeller tells everybody not to worry about this trifle; Governor Romney’s staff makes confused sounds. The delegates to the Republican national convention will have to worry about all of this.”

The “dread risk!”

QUESTIONS ABOUT MITT ROMNEY

More recently, Commander Charles Kerchner wrote about Mitt Romney’s eligibility:

When Mitt Romney was born in the USA in Detroit MI in 1947, his parents were both clearly recognized as being Citizens of the United States per the U. S. Nationality Act of 1940. Thus Mitt was born in the USA to parents (plural) who were both citizens of the country and Mitt is a “natural born Citizen of the United States … George Romney was a Citizen of the United States per U.S. “jus sanguinis” laws going back to the founding of our nation and also per the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940. He was born in Mexico of U.S. Citizen parents and thus George Romney is a “Citizen” at birth under U.S. laws including the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940. Detractors claim that George Romney’s parents legally renounced their U.S. citizenship while in Mexico and thus could not pass along their U.S. Citizenship by jus sanguinis to their son George Romney. There is absolutely no evidence of that. … He was recognized by all U.S. laws as a U.S. Citizen long before 1940 but the National Act of 1940 … clearly stated that people in George Romney’s status were citizens of the United States at birth.That act was adopted 7 years prior to Mitt Romney being born in Detroit MI.George Romney was not eligible. Mitt is eligible.

Constitutional law experts say George Romney’s eligibility probably would be upheld today, because his parents retained their U.S. citizenship. “Otherwise, fortuity of birth circumstances might deprive the electorate of the best available candidate,” said Peter Spiro, a citizenship expert at Temple University. “But no doubt some folks would raise the question in the same way it was raised in 1968.”

MORE FACTS ABOUT GEORGE ROMNEY

George W. Romney traveled extensively before Mitt Romney was born, so he must have had a U.S. passport. Was he a listed as a U.S. citizen on his passport? Most certainly he was a U.S. citizen by the time he became Governor of Michigan.

worked for Massachusetts Democratic U.S. Senator David I. Walsh during 1929 and 1930, first as a stenographer using speedwriting, then, when his abilities at that proved limited, as a staff aide working on tariffs and other legislative matters. Romney researched aspects of the proposed Hawley-Smoot tariff legislation and sat in on committee meetings; the job was a turning point in his career and gave him lifelong confidence in dealing with Congress. … When [Lenore] LaFount [his future wife], an aspiring actress, began earning bit roles in Hollywood movies, Romney arranged to be transferred to Alcoa’s Los Angeles office as a salesman. … The couple married on July 2, 1931, at Salt Lake City Temple. They would have four children: Margo Lynn (born 1935), Jane LaFount (born 1938), George Scott (born 1941), and Willard Mitt (born 1947).

If George Romney were not a citizen by 1931, wouldn’t his marriage to U.S. citizen LaFount make him so? His work for the government in DC explains why he got his Social Security number there, instead of in Michigan. He was a federal employee during the 1930s. Would he not have to be a U.S. citizen? Would not his citizenship be noted on any of the papers he filled out for the job?

George W. Romney lived in the United Kingdom, doing missionary work, prior to his work in DC. Again, what passport did he have and what citizenship did it specify?

We know from a contemporaneous news story that as of October 15 1967, George W. Romney hadn’t filed any particular papers to make himself a citizen. So all depends upon whether or not US law automatically repatriated children if their parents repatriated, or if Gaskell truly lost his citizenship when he went to Mexico. Multiple news stories state that he did not relinquish his American citizenship. It also depends upon whether or not Kerchner is correct that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 made George W. a naturalized citizen. In the end, George W. Romney was not nominated for the presidency.

WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE

Consider how differently the New York Times covers the issue of Obama’s ineligibility today!

To date, there are 4 stories since 1851 in their archives that mention the name Malihi (the surname of the judge in a case that seeks to keep Obama off the Georgia primary ballot because his father was never a U.S. citizen and because Obama was born a British subject). Not one of these stories concerns the ballot issue. All refer to Iranian men, not the Georgia administrative judge of the same surname.

Similarly, there are 14 articles that mention Dr. Orly Taitz. A quick examination reveals that most contain references to “birthers,” “Birther Queen,” “bleached blond,” “Republican cranks,” and “conspiracy theories.” Almost every one of the articles ison a blog or is an opinion piece, as compared to the many straight news stories that the NY Times carried about Romney, back in the 1960s. Here’s just a taste from one article:

She looks like a young Carol Channing, sounds like an overexcited Zsa Zsa Gabor, and has the ability to make absurd accusations with a completely straight face. By midsummer, Taitz was appearing regularly on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, a decision the news channels justified with the risible pretext of needing to be fair to those on “both sides” of an issue about which there was nothing up for debate—at least not in the real world. Before long, mainstream on-air personalities like Lou Dobbs were pimping the story as hard as Taitz or any of her allies were, to equally comical effect.

So with regard to Obama’s ineligibility, there’s “nothing up for debate.” How ridiculous! Consider that unlike George Romney, nobody knows for certain where Obama was born butwe do know for certain that his father was NOT a U.S. citizen and that Obama was BORN a British subject, later to become a Kenyan citizen as well as an Indonesian citizen. How do we know? Obama himself told us so.

Yet anyone who even debates Obama’s eligibility doesn’t live “in the real world.” To simply question Obama’s eligibility is “risible.” Such questions are “absurd accusations.”

Compare the tone of that article to the tone of the many news articles that warned about George W. Romney’s potential ineligibility. Consider the seriousness with which they reported the words of the many “constitutional experts” who questioned Romney’s natural born citizenship.

It’s a travesty.

Whatever became of their concern about the danger of having a president declared ineligible after the election?

In the late 1960s, the Republicans were warned of that danger by an alert media; yet in 2008, the Democrats were aided and abetted by a complicit media that ignored the questions and actually helped them to demonize the citizens who rightfully asked them.

How can we explain the difference?

Was it racism against Mexicans that caused the mainstream media to question George W. Romney’s citizenship? Was it bias against persons born in Mexico? Or was it prejudice against Romney’s Mormon religion?

These are the exact accusations thrown out by the mainstream media against those who question Obama’s eligibility. We’re excoriated and ridiculed as “birthers”. We’re warned not to mention that Obama was Muslim when he was a child. We’re called racists and bigots because, they say, we question his “citizenship”, when in actuality it’s his natural born citizenship that we question, exactly like the mainstream media questioned George W. Romney’s natural born citizenship during the 1960s.

For the record: I’m not a Mitt Romney supporter. I prefer Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum. I am, however, interested in truth and fairness. I agree that it is incumbent upon Romney to present the paperwork that will prove that he is eligible for the presidency. The same holds true for Barack Hussein Obama II, who has YET to produce a 3-D, certified, verifiable birth certificate that will show us, his employers, who he is, as well as where he was born, and whether or not he meets the Constitutional requirements to be president. We have our doubts.

Note: This post was corrected after publication, when I realized that the Gaskell Romney who registered for the draft in 1918 must have been another Gaskell, not George W.’s father. Gaskell Maurice Romney, born 1897, listed Gaskell Romney as his closest relative. If he was George W. Romney’s brother, then it’s interesting to consider that the U.S. government considered him a U.S. citizen for purposes of the draft.

Update 1/17/2012: I’ve since learned that Gaskell Maurice Romney was indeed the son of Gaskell Samuel Romney, and so the younger Gaskell was the brother of George W. Romney. Since their parents married in Mexico and George was born there, then it’s logical to assume that his older brothers were also born in Mexico. Thus, in 1918, the U.S. government considered Gaskell Maurice to be a citizen of the USA. Gaskell had to register for the draft and on his registration, he’s listed as a citizen of the US. George would likely have registered, too, had he been old enough for WWI; and as likely, he would have been listed as a US citizen, despite his birth in Mexico.

Update #2 for 1/27/2012: h/t to Bridgette: The 1930 Mexican census lists a number of members of the Romney family. These are some of those who remained in Mexico when George W. Romney’s family returned to the USA. These Romneys were listed on the Mexican census as “Americano”, specifically not as Mexicans. The column headings allowed for (23) Mexican citizens; (24) if an alien, state actual nationality; and (25) if previously held another nationality, state that nationality. The instructions for the census takers appear to indicate that when a dependent child was born in Mexico, his nationality would be listed as the nationality of his parents. Thus, as you can see for one of those Romneys who was born in Mexico, he was still listed on this official Mexican government document as an AMERICAN, not as a Mexican citizen. The rest of the Romneys on that page were all listed as Americans, no matter where they were born. So, as of 1930, nearly two decades after George W. Romney’s family returned to the USA, their relatives in Mexico were STILL NOT Mexican citizens. At least, that’s my take on it. If anyone translates or interprets this page differently, please feel free to correct me.

Update 01/31/2012: Hayden, one of our illustrious researcher/commenters, supplied this information about territorial citizens and US citizens:

§ 2:11. Citizenship by birth in territories inside continental U.S

The Constitution granted Congress power to legislate over territories acquired by the U.S. The U.S. governed, as territories prior to their admission, almost all states admitted after the U.S. Constitution became effective. It is clear that U.S. citizens who had moved to the territories, or for some other reason resided in them, continued to be U.S. citizens.

In contrast, there was controversy as to the citizenship status of noncitizens who took up residence in the territories before they became states. Territories ceded by treaty usually made provision for the status of the inhabitants of the territory vis-à-vis the United States and may have achieved the granting of citizenship with the transfer of allegiance. Even in the territories that were not acquired in this fashion, Congress provided resident noncitizens with such political rights as the right to vote in the affairs of the territories. In addition, noncitizens residing in territories have always had the same right to naturalize as noncitizens who lived in the original states. Once the territories became states of the U.S., Congress provided for some noncitizens in some of the states to become U.S. citizens automatically through the process of collective naturalization. Some typical examples follow.

Louisiana was ceded by France in a treaty on October 21, 1803. The treaty transferring sovereignty over the territory to the United States specifically provided that “the inhabitants shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible … to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States.” Until its admission as a state of the United States in 1812, Louisiana was ruled as the territory of Orleans. Some courts have considered that residents of the territory became U.S. citizens at the time of the cession of the territory to the United States. At the time of Louisiana’s admission as a state, U.S. citizenship also vested on noncitizens who had moved to the territory of Orleans after the cession.

Spain transferred Florida to the United States in 1819 under a treaty that had substantially the same provision as the Louisiana treaty. Justice Marshall found that the treaty, as the law of the land, admitted the inhabitants of the territory to U.S. citizenship. They, however, would not share in the government until Florida became a state. This view may have been somewhat simplistic, as it was not until 1822 that Congress passed an act conferring upon the inhabitants of Florida the rights of citizenship. Florida did not become a state until 1845.

The organic acts that ruled the territories of Montana, Nebraska, Washington, and Wyoming extended the right to vote in the internal affairs of the territories not only to U.S. citizens residing there but also to noncitizens who had made a declaration of intention of becoming U.S. citizens. When these territories became states of the United States, declarant noncitizens became U.S. citizens.

The territory of Dakota was ruled under the Organic Act of 1861 until the admission of North and South Dakota as states in 1889. The organic act granted the right to vote in the internal affairs of the territory to resident U.S. citizens and to noncitizens who resided in the territory, who had made a declaration of intention of becoming U.S. citizens, and who had taken the oath to support the U.S. Constitution. At the time of admission of the territory, the voters became U.S. citizens. In addition, the organic act made the U.S. Constitution fully applicable to the territory. There should be no doubt that persons born in the territory while it was a territory were U.S. citizens at birth.

Unlike most other territories, the Enabling Act of the Territory of Utah conferred the right to vote only upon U.S. citizens residing there. Noncitizen residents of the territory were not conferred these political rights. When the territory became a state, those resident noncitizens did not automatically become U.S. citizens even if they had filed declarations of intention of becoming U.S. citizens.

The Organic Act of Oklahoma granted the right to vote to U.S. citizens residing in the territory and to male noncitizens over twenty-one who, within the previous twelve months, had made a declaration of intention of becoming U.S. citizens. However, the act did not adopt the noncitizens’ right to vote. Therefore, when the territory became a state, these residents did not automatically become U.S. citizens. The organic act did, however, incorporate the U.S. Constitution to the territory of Oklahoma, so persons born there were U.S. citizens at birth.

U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Handbook § 2:11

Now these facts may come in handy when trying to figure out the citizenship status of Gaskell Romney’s parents.

4

UPDATE: May 30, 2012

Reuters released a copy of Mitt Romney’s Birth Certificate that was sent to them by the Romney campaign.

Me too Leza, unreal, Pratt,I must have just read something with his name on it along with Oliver Hazard Payne just ten minutes ago. They were two of the first of Rockefeller’s partners/trustees of his when Rockefellers monopoly had to be disolved. They were trustees for life too. Standard oil of New Jersey and his other main company in New York became his .He became . Their main operating office was in Cleveland Ohio. the Ruth Baker Pratt name I hadn’t seen. Wow, such a small, small world.

Exactly Renee, more of the same. Romney is a known RINO, but you knew that. Oh yes Alfy, Ruth Baker Pratt, you Renee & I must do coffee together sometime! Maybe Renee will start a research thread for the connections. I’ll bring the coffee!

Just lets me know that Conspiracies are the real Deal.The country can’t seem to shake Romney even if they wanted to. The media, the propagandists have helped put this glue all over him. For sure some slimeballs in a smoke filled New York highrise or cushy yacht/CFR or the last Bilderberg orgie, they had all the stats on Romney and all the candidates. He gets to be our man whether we like him or not. We’re given just enough medicine to mask the symptoms of his liberalness and make this dude acceptable.By the time election rolls around maybe he and Obama can both be televised together holding up their new ‘World Citizenship Papers’ in bright bloody red ink !

DES MOINES, Iowa – Typically, a few typos scattered among the 99 counties of the Iowa caucus don’t make much of a difference in the final tally, but when only 8 votes separate the leading contenders, those typos might mean that Rick Santorum, and not declared winner Mitt Romney, was actually the victor in the first-in-the-nation caucus.

Hey………….What happend to the two comments I posted last night concerning Romney’s and Obummers ballet challenges in Illinois? I asked the question if this might be the “Tipping Point”! Do we have an OBOT amongst us?

Oh..Sorry…Never mind! I found it. It was posted on a different thread than I remember. Here were my comments and links listed below. It looks like there are other comments concerning this on that thread.

Kathy | January 16, 2012 at 12:28 am | Reply

YEAH…..YEAH………….YEAH………..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

COULD THIS BE THE “TIPPING POINT”??????????????

I am so glad that they are finally challenging this man also! Let me guess. We must all be racist.:)

WLS Radio has learned that President Barack Obama faces three local challenges to his eligibility for the Illinois primary ballot. At least one involves a group that believes the fight will be worse than the one Mayor Rahm Emanuel faced with his residency challenge.

Chicago 43rd Ward Republican Committeeman Chris Cleveland tells WLS News exclusively that the Obama campaign filed defective petitions with large numbers of unregistered voters. “Barack Obama, in his very first election, challenged his opponent and knocked him off the ballot, and no one had any opportunity to vote for anyone other than Barack Obama. Well, today he is getting hoisted with his own petard.”

I agree with you Kathy. Let everyone show ID to vote, and let ALL candidates show that they are legit. If they pass the sniff test then they have nothing to hide right ?
I think this is interesting….to say the least.

Mitt Romney not a natural-born citizen?
Some point to his father’s birth in Mexico, grandparents citizenship
Jerome R. Corsi
Jan. 17, 2012 Snips

However, the available evidence shows that even under the strictest interpretation of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, Romney is a natural-born citizen, according to Article 2, Section 1.

The questions have been raised because Romney’s grandparents went to Mexico in the 1800s, where Mitt Romney’s father, George W. Romney, was born, July 8, 1907.

A genealogy of Mitt Romney has been prepared by eligibility researcher Charles Kerchner.
~
No debate of any importance can be found in the public record challenging George W. Romney’s citizenship in 1963, when he first ran to be Michigan’s 43rd governor. Section 13 of the Michigan State Constitution provides: “No person shall be eligible to the office of governor or lieutenant governor who shall not have attained the age of 30 years and who has not been 5 years a citizen of the United States.” Thus, according to the constitution of the State of Michigan, George W. Romney had to be a U.S. citizen to be Michigan’s governor.

In 1968, when he decided to run for president, the only serious debate at the time was whether George W. Romney was a natural-born citizen under Article 2, Section 1, not whether or not he was a U.S. citizen.

Judging by the Happersett decision and most interpretations of the eligibility clause, a president’s parents would only have to be citizens of the U.S. at the time of his or her birth, not natural-born citizens.Therefore, even if George W. Romney’s birth in Mexico disqualified him from being a natural-born citizen, Mitt Romney could be a natural-born citizen, because his father was a citizen when his son was born.

Mitt Romney, then, was born on March 12, 1947, in Detroit, Mich., to two U.S. citizen parents – George W. Romney and Lenore Emily LaFount; LaFount was a U.S. citizen, born on Nov. 9, 1908, in Logan, Utah.
~
But even if neither of Mitt Romney’s parents were natural-born citizens, it would not prevent Mitt Romney himself from being a natural-born president.

I was especially interested in how Romney’s placement on the ballot was contested in Oregon and how the news stories said that any citizen would or should be able to contest George Romney’s appearance on the ballot. What a difference 5 decades and a candidate of a different party (DemocRAT) makes with the lamestream media. I found how many stories about George Romney from the 1960s? And how many serious news articles have there been about Obama’s ineligibility (that haven’t ridiculed the very idea)? Zip, ZERO, nada.

Well done article Miri! You have shown how much the NY TImes has changed and the extent that their liberal bent has taken. The fact that they once considered the topic important, and now they cover up the details as it pertains to Obama is pathetic. It appears Corsi took the same tact regarding George Romney being a citizen according to Wong Kim Ark as the commentator in one of the newspaper articles above. It seems that McCain also fell under the same type circumstances being born to citizen parents on foreign soil, so he was not a NBC.

It was interesting to see that Col. Kerchner had researched Mitt’s genealogy.

TY, Bridgette, for reading my article. I know it was long but it was tedious to transcribe all those news stories. As I did, I was amazed at how BIASED this media is. There can be no other explanation!

Corsi, I believe, is wrong to write that Gaskell Romney was polygamous. He apparently was not, although Gaskell’s father may have been. Gaskell was 14 when his father took him to Mexico. It’s simply unfair to get such details wrong. How long will it be before the lamestream start piling on Romney about polygamy and equating it to stands against gay marriage?

I was thinking of this last night. Will they try to use the SCOTUS ruling about religion to overturn laws against polygamy (for Muslims, not for Mormons, who officially have foresworn the practice)?

I can understand why the progressives loved having Romney. Because they can raise these red herrings to equate Romney’s father’s birth in Mexico (to TWO US CITIZENS) with BHO Sr.’s birth in Kenya. It’s a false equivalency, as we know, but their sound bites and spins will “simplify” it for the inattentive ones among the public. Then it will be that much easier to make questions about Barry look like racist or anti-Muslim sentiment.

Corsi cites as a source the London LDS Temple, when in actuality, that was just the caption on the photo of the London Temple. That appears to be a genealogy prepared by someone not specified. That person is apparently mistaken that Gaskell Romney was polygamous. He and his wife married in 1895, when he was in his early 20s. By 1912, they’d moved to the US with their kids. He’s in the census here with one wife.

How many of us would have thought much about the details of candidates’ citizenship a few years ago? I doubt we would have given much thought. Only since ‘O.’. Allen Keys was another one ,but that’s been since Obama too. For one thing most of them have appeared they were “american” looking and sounding, and we/I took it for granted. I am now wondering if most of them are aliens from another planet and we’ve been fooled for many years.

Jackson filed his challenge to Obama on January 9 and now follows up with a haymaker directed at Mitt. Some of the “birther” experts have already opined that it’s a settled issue and Mitt is legal, based on painstaking geneaology and Mexican law research. However, they have NOT ascertained whether Mitt’s parents ever had any issues surrounding renunciation of citizenship and what their status was on Mitt’s birthdate.

If Mexico did not permit dual citizenship then, there could be issues. One person opined that we would have to prove Romney clan members renounced their citizenship. Actually, if Mexico did not permit dual citizenship, he would have to prove that they DIDN”T renounce it, since the presumption would then be that they had to.

We understand that another team is picking up where they left off, for further research, data collection and analysis.I think that it’s wise that we clear it up as soon as possible, dotting “i’s” and crossing “t’s,” so the Dems can’t repeat anything like McCain’s humiliating 2008 Senate hearing — and Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by none other than “Barack Hussein Obama”– oh, the irony!http://obamaballotchallenge.com/illinois-obama-ballot-challenger-jackson-also-challenges-romney

Barry is eligible until proven ineligible. Gee, do I smell bias and illogic?

ROMNEY would “have to prove” that his ancestors didn’t renounce citizenship? But by their same logic, wouldn’t Barry then “HAVE TO PROVE” WHO THE HELL HE IS?

Need I point out that ALL Romney needs to prove is that his father was a CITIZEN in 1947? It doesn’t matter what the heck their ancestors did in Mexico. But the record Bridgette found in the Mexican census of 1930 PROVES that 20 years after the Romneys returned to the USA, the kin they left behind in Mexico were STILL not Mexican citizens. (See the updates at the end of the post.)

Obviously, then, that Mexico did NOT give citizenship to people merely born on their soil. I would be willing to bet that policy still stands today. Do you really believe that if an American tourist gives birth in Mexico, that country gives the baby every right as a Mexican citizen? Can the baby vote in Mexican elections, upon reaching the correct age? Does the Mexican health care system pay for the baby’s care? Think about that.

What if the baby is born premature and has tons of medical bills? Will the baby get it all paid for by their health system? Cradle to grave social benefits? The Mexicans are notorious about keeping non-citizens from owning land in Mexico. How hard would it be, then, for pregnant foreigners to go there to give birth, just so they can then buy land in the name of the child? Hey, anybody want some pristine land along the Mexican Riviera?

There are some threads on Free Republic about this topic. They say that people are citing laws that were in effect AFTER George Romney was born.

George Romney’s brother was drafted in WWI as a citizen. George Romney was a governor of a state. He was married to a US citizen. I’m all for Mitt Romney producing evidence that his dad was a citizen in 1947, when he was born. By the same token, Barry should produce ALL evidence as to his very identity.

Unlike Romney, who has a long history in the public eye, we still don’t know who Barry is. We don’t even know what his name is.

Sending out prayers for Scott Walker, Gov. of Wisconsin, who the Union Collective has targeted to oust along with 4 reps that supported him in his collective bargaining bill. The cost to the Wisconsin taxpayers – $9 million for just a recall election in the summer and double that for the ensuing lawsuits. All the Union money is coming into the state from Washington and outside interests. The voters are being taken for a ride! All the recall petitions were delivered to election officials today. Word to the wise in Wisconsin, check those signatures and see if they are all legitimate!

This is the new playbook for the Democrats… recall petitions. They used it successfully in AZ and have moved into Wisconsin. What we can expect to see more of in the coming 10 months.

OMG! TY, Renee. Did you notice that they linked to us? I’d like to thank that writer for the kind treatment of our story. The writer made some good points that I missed:

(1) The controversy over Romney’s potential ineligibility and the traction the story got in the news was a factor in Romney dropping out.

(2) The way the NY Times reported about Orly Taitz WAS DECIDEDLY SEXIST. Good point! Why else make note of her appearance instead of her legal arguments? (Shades of how they treat all female politicians, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton.) Oh, yes. And Orly’s an immigrant! I thought the progressives love immigrants. Well, only those who are illegal and who support Obama and leftist policies, apparently.

(3) During the last presidential campaign, The NY Times did publish serious stories concerning questions about McCain’s natural born citizenship. Of course, we pointed that out at the time. But it was well worth repeating. They covered McCain’s potential ineligibility but studiously ignored Barry’s.

How different things might be today if only the NY Times had been fair and unbiased and had covered this VERY REAL ISSUE of Barry’s ineligibility.

Renee | January 18, 2012 at 12:42 pm
No Miri I did not notice the link to us. I just thought the story and writer were excellent.

Renee | January 18, 2012 at 12:51 pm
It is a link Miri. Amazing. I did not press it, I just read us. ROTFL ! Now I pressed it instead of just reading. I went too fast the first time !

Renee | January 18, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Miri, is the link gone now ?

Miri | January 18, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Yes, most excellent, especially since based on our story. I wish, as a lawyer, that person would weigh in here sometimes, to help us discern the wheat from the legal chaff.

Renee | January 18, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Link is still there. It connects w/ the story name and not our blog name. Miri, I am so proud of you !

I have very little to add to this, only a few observations gleaned during the course of my own research which support any challenge to Romney’s claim to be a Natural born citizen as a fair one and deserving of respect.

1) George Romney’s parents left Utah before it was declared a state. Thus they were Utah citizens, but did not have Federal/US citizenship when they left. Utah was brought into the Union in before the Romney’s were forced out of Mexico. Thus when Utah was made a state the Romney’s were out of the jurisdiction of Utah and thus would not seem to automatically qualify for automatic US citizenship. If someone has an answer to this, please post. I cannot find any sort of procedure to handle this situation in the US Code.

2) The definition of a native is very clear. You are a native based on the location of your birth. Thus, George Romney was a native Mexican, whether or not he was legally recognized as such. That is the way WKA defines native, per the 14th amendment and English common law, and it remains so to this day. No changes have been made. Though George Romney was born to parents who may or may not have officially renounced their citizenship, he will never be a US native citizen, because he was not born on US soil or under US jurisdiction.

3) The basis for Mr. Romney’s (Mitt or George) assumption that he is a natural born citizen may not stem from the US Constitution at all, but from a misinterpretation of what a natural born subject is under English common law. By definition a NBS is one born in the dominion of the Monarchy/Crown. Thus an NBS is one born jus soli and is equivalent to a native of England and thus it did not matter if your parents were aliens or natives themselves. Jus sanguinis seemed to be reserved in matters of inheritance and peerage not citizenship. Viewed this way Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, makes no sense, because the alternative reading would be “a native citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution…” In this case, there is no difference between a native citizen (born jus soli) and a citizen. However, that isn’t the way it is written. It is written “natural born citizen,” thus you cannot equate native citizen, aka natural born subject, with NBC.
For those needing a source, Read Blackstone’s Commentaries, in which he equates native with natural born subject.

4) So it remains, the only way George Romney could claim US citizenship was via jus sanguinis and even in 1940, a claim of jus sanguinis was insufficient to be recognized a US citizen. Even though he could claim US Citizenship, he had to fill out paperwork to formalize it. Not a full on naturalization, but a certification of citizenship.

If George Romney never officially registered with the US Government as a foreign-born US citizen, then how on earth did he obtain a passport or any other privilege that required an official document, such as obtaining a Social Security number?

If Mitt Romney’s claim to be a Natural born citizen is so slam-dunk, then let him provide the proof to answer the challenges that are currently under way. Since “everyone” and the lawyers are in agreement that he is NBC, then there should be no impediment in producing the Birth Certificates of George Romney and his wife.

Simple enough. If, however, no document of recognition of US citizenship exists for Mr. George Romney, it is not our problem. The well was poisoned with Obama; there is no more “trust me.”

I would like to hear an analysis of these arguments from one of our legal eagles.

Does a person have to be a resident of a state at the time of statehood in order to be considered a citizen of that state and then also a US citizen? Romney’s grandfather was born in Utah when it was a US Territory, right? So wasn’t he then a US citizen?

Since in 1930 the Mexican government still did not consider the Mormons born to American citizens IN MEXICO as Mexicans, it seems that George Romney, who returned to the US at age 5, would not have been considered a Mexican citizen by either country. George Romney was not eligible for the presidency. ALL that’s required for Mitt to be eligible is for his parents to be CITIZENS (not natural born citizens) of the USA when Mitt was born.

George Romney worked for the federal government in the 1930s. He traveled to Europe before the 1930s, likely on a US passport, but it would be nice to SEE it to see what citizenship was listed on it. He was a governor of Michigan. He got a Social Security number in DC, when he worked there in the ’30s. All these government records would show whether the US government considered him a citizen in 1947.

Let Mitt Romney produce the documents. We’re not hypocrites here. ALL candidates MUST prove their eligibility to We the People, their employers.

Also, somebody has to say this (if I missed it, I stand corrected) but technically what is linked here is not Mitt’s “birth certificate” but is analagous to the “Certification of Live Birth” from HI. Well, except I believe this one truly is an accurate abstract of the original birth certificate

It also says void all over it but maybe the websites put that there to prevent someone from printing it out on security paper and coopting Romney’s identity. They cut it off before any seal of the state of Michigan, too. Why do they always crop images like that? It looks so bogus. Funny that they bothered to ask Romney’s campaign for his birth certificate but so far as we know, Reuters has never asked Obama’s for his.

The Constitution granted Congress power to legislate over territories acquired by the U.S.1 The U.S. governed, as territories prior to their admission, almost all states admitted after the U.S. Constitution became effective.2 It is clear that U.S. citizens who had moved to the territories, or for some other reason resided in them, continued to be U.S. citizens.3

In contrast, there was controversy as to the citizenship status of noncitizens who took up residence in the territories before they became states.4 Territories ceded by treaty usually made provision for the status of the inhabitants of the territory vis-à-vis the United States and may have achieved the granting of citizenship with the transfer of allegiance.5 Even in the territories that were not acquired in this fashion, Congress provided resident noncitizens with such political rights as the right to vote in the affairs of the territories.6 In addition, noncitizens residing in territories have always had the same right to naturalize as noncitizens who lived in the original states.7 Once the territories became states of the U.S., Congress provided for some noncitizens in some of the states to become U.S. citizens automatically through the process of collective naturalization.8 Some typical examples follow.

Louisiana was ceded by France in a treaty on October 21, 1803.9 The treaty transferring sovereignty over the territory to the United States specifically provided that “the inhabitants shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible … to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States.”10 Until its admission as a state of the United States in 1812, Louisiana was ruled as the territory of Orleans.11 Some courts have considered that residents of the territory became U.S. citizens at the time of the cession of the territory to the United States.12 At the time of Louisiana’s admission as a state, U.S. citizenship also vested on noncitizens who had moved to the territory of Orleans after the cession.13

Spain transferred Florida to the United States in 1819 under a treaty that had substantially the same provision as the Louisiana treaty.14 Justice Marshall found that the treaty, as the law of the land, admitted the inhabitants of the territory to U.S. citizenship.15 They, however, would not share in the government until Florida became a state.16 This view may have been somewhat simplistic, as it was not until 1822 that Congress passed an act conferring upon the inhabitants of Florida the rights of citizenship.17 Florida did not become a state until 1845.18

The organic acts that ruled the territories of Montana, Nebraska, Washington, and Wyoming extended the right to vote in the internal affairs of the territories not only to U.S. citizens residing there but also to noncitizens who had made a declaration of intention of becoming U.S. citizens.19 When these territories became states of the United States, declarant noncitizens became U.S. citizens.20

The territory of Dakota was ruled under the Organic Act of 186121 until the admission of North and South Dakota as states in 1889. The organic act granted the right to vote in the internal affairs of the territory to resident U.S. citizens and to noncitizens who resided in the territory, who had made a declaration of intention of becoming U.S. citizens, and who had taken the oath to support the U.S. Constitution.22 At the time of admission of the territory, the voters became U.S. citizens.23 In addition, the organic act made the U.S. Constitution fully applicable to the territory.24 There should be no doubt that persons born in the territory while it was a territory were U.S. citizens at birth.

Unlike most other territories, the Enabling Act of the Territory of Utah conferred the right to vote only upon U.S. citizens residing there.25 Noncitizen residents of the territory were not conferred these political rights. When the territory became a state, those resident noncitizens did not automatically become U.S. citizens even if they had filed declarations of intention of becoming U.S. citizens.26

The Organic Act of Oklahoma granted the right to vote to U.S. citizens residing in the territory and to male noncitizens over twenty-one who, within the previous twelve months, had made a declaration of intention of becoming U.S. citizens.27 However, the act did not adopt the noncitizens’ right to vote.28 Therefore, when the territory became a state, these residents did not automatically become U.S. citizens.29 The organic act did, however, incorporate the U.S. Constitution to the territory of Oklahoma, so persons born there were U.S. citizens at birth.30

Well, that’s clear as mud. So since Utah was a territory when Romney’s ancestors were born there, were they born U.S. citizens? When Utah became a STATE, they weren’t living there, but they were still U.S. citizens, living in Mexico. Right? This said the territory allowed only U.S. citizens living in Utah to vote and noncitizen residents of the TERRITORY couldn’t vote. So if they were BORN in the territory, they were U.S. citizens? Or if they moved to the territory from Illinois and other eastern states where they were born, they were U.S. citizens. Gaskell Romney was born in Utah when it was a territory, apparently to U.S. citizens. He moved back to Utah from Mexico around 1912.

Thanks for looking this up, Hayden. It still seems clear as mud to me.

LOL! If someone was born in a state and moved to Utah when it was a territory, they were a U.S. citizen, but if someone was born in Utah when it was a territory they were a non-citizen resident of the territory. When Utah attained statehood they did not become citizens.
The Nationality Act of 1940 may have some impact on this, I haven’t looked yet.
What year and where were his father and grandfather born?

I’m still confused. I don’t read that as saying that a person born to two U.S. citizens in Utah when it was a territory are “non-citizen residents”. I assumed they meant Mexican citizens who still lived in Utah when it became a U.S. territory. Kerchner does say that the Nationality Act of 1940 says it affirmed that they were citizens, but, iirc, he said they were still citizens anyway. In my post, above, there’s a link to Kerchner’s reasoning and I think he has a genealogy of the family there. I know there’s a link to their genealogy somewhere in the post. Thanks, Bridgette, for his dad’s death information. So he was listed on his death certificate as a citizen. Isn’t it a general rule that persons born in U.S. territories are U.S. citizens? Like Puerto Ricans, etc.?

TY, Hayden, for your opinion. It IS long and since I’m not a lawyer, I got lost in the details when I read it, which is why I didn’t come to any conclusion in my post, in the section (where the Act is linked above) that has Commander Kerchner’s take on it. iirc, he gives his opinion but I do wish that he’d cite chapter and verse so that non-lawyers can read and follow his reasoning. Actually, I don’t know if Kerchner is a lawyer.

That was a heavy read! I couldn’t tell which sections were applicable to the Romneys. Nor did I spend a lot of time trying to figure it out either. There were a couple sections that I thought applied to John McCain, but still I wasn’t sure if he was NBC from how it was written about Panama, his father being in the military, etc. There were two separate sections one pertaining to Panama and another to the Canal? I did find the following interesting and wonder if this section is enforced?

Did you know there was an English language requirement to be naturalized?

Sec. 304.No person except as otherwise provided in this Act shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States upon his own petition who cannot speak the English language. This requirement shall not apply to any person physically unable to comply therewith, if otherwise qualified to be naturalized.

“The author of the Mitt Romney eligibilty artcle said he/she would support Rick Santorum. Rick Santorums’ father, Alto Santorum, was an Italian immigrant and Rick has avoided releasing his father’s naturalization papers, if they even exist.

We don’t know if Alto Santorum was naturalized BEFORE Rick’s birth or if he wa naturalized at all. Since Rick’s refusal to release documentation should give pause to anyone considering supporting him.

How can the author of the Mitt article clai to support the Constitution dedisre to support Rick without questioning if Rick himself is a natural born citizen?” [sic]

Where to begin?

First of all, that I prefer Rick Santorum as a candidate does not mean that he is likely the nominee. Romney is (or was until Saturday!) so I focused my research on him FIRST. It may surprise you to learn, but it’s true, that I have begun to research Rick Santorum’s eligibility, too. btw, Santorum’s father’s name was Aldo.

Second, please read what I said above: “We’re not hypocrites here. ALL candidates MUST prove their eligibility to We the People, their employers.”

Santorum SHOULD have his mother release those naturalization papers that she says she has. I don’t know if he’s been asked to do so, but he shouldn’t wait to be asked.

I do support the Constitution. That’s why I said that ALL candidates need to prove their eligibility.

I’ve said many times that Rubio (who I like, too) is sadly ineligible for the presidency. Ditto for Bobby Jindal. Apparently their parents were not citizens when they were born. Therefore, they are NOT natural born citizens. Absent an AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION, neither can be president. Ever.

Please give us a break. Do you think it’s easy to do all that research? Do you think it’s easy to put it all together? No, it’s not. I didn’t even come to a conclusion about Romney. Did I?

Santorum’s day will come, possibly. When it does, I’ll finish researching him. Right now, I consider it a waste of my time because he doesn’t look likely to win. Of course, you’re correct that if he’s not a natural born citizen, he shouldn’t even be on primary ballots.

Santorum’s potential ineligibility did give me “pause.” I just figured the topic is not yet ripe, to borrow a phrase from the asshat courts that stalled the 2008 Obama ineligibility cases.

Obama brought attention to what he is HIDING, by paying $2 MILLION plus to hide it. America should never have tolerated this act of deceit in a president. All of America has a right to facts and not just BELIEVE ME BECAUSE I SAID SO……”You Lie” was not a lie, was it? NO ONE CAN DENY THAT TRUTH

WASHINGTON — Finally,there is definitive proof: The presidential candidate was born in the United States, and his father was not.

Yes, Republican Mitt Romney appears eligible to be president, according to a copy of Romney’s birth certificate released to Reuters by his campaign. Willard Mitt Romney, the certificate says, was born in Detroit on March 12, 1947. His mother, Lenore, was born in Utah and his father, former Michigan governor and one-time Republican presidential candidate George Romney, was born in Mexico.

So on a day when real estate and media mogul Donald Trump was trying to help Mitt Romney by stirring up a new round of questions about whether Democratic President Barack Obama was born in the United States, Romney’s own birth record became a reminder that in the 1968 presidential campaign, his father had faced his own “birther” controversy.

Back then, George Romney – who died in 1995 – was a moderate who was challenging eventual President Richard Nixon in the Republican primaries. With Texas win, Romney secures delegates to win nomination.Records in a George Romney archive at the University of Michigan describe how questions about his eligibility to be president surfaced almost as soon as he began his short-lived campaign.

In many ways, they appear to echo today’s complaints that Trump and some other conservative “birthers” have made about Obama while questioning whether Obama – whose father was from Kenya and mother was from Kansas – was born in Hawaii.

In George Romney’s case, most of the questions were raised initially by Democrats who cited the Constitution’s requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can be president.As early as February 1967 - a year before the first 1968 presidential primary – some newspapers were raising questions as to whether George Romney’s place of birth disqualified him from the presidency.

By May 1967, U.S. congressman Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat who chaired the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, was expressing “serious doubts” about George Romney’s eligibility. The next month, another Democratic congressman inserted a lengthy treatise into the Congressional Record in which a government lawyer – writing in a “personal capacity” – argued that George Romney was ineligible for the White House because he was born outside U.S. territory.

Deja vu [ I’ll say!]

In what today might seem like deja vu, eminent legal authorities soon were queuing up to argue in favor of George Romney’s eligibility.

The New York Law Journal published a lengthy argument by a senior partner from Sullivan & Cromwell, one of Manhattan’s elite law firms, arguing that the fact that both of George Romney’s parents were U.S. citizens clearly established him as a “natural born citizen” who was eligible to be president.

George Romney himself was unequivocal. “I am a natural born citizen. My parents were American citizens. I was a citizen at birth,” he said, according to a typewritten statement found in his archives.

Mitt Romney takes on Las Vegas

At one point, the Congressional Research Service - an arm of the Library of Congress that is supposed to provide authoritative but impartial research for elected members – advised that its analysts agreed with George Romney, according to a congressional source.

In a paper in November aimed at clarifying presidential eligibility, the Congressional Research Service declared that the practical, legal meaning of “natural born citizen” would “most likely include” not only anyone born on U.S. soil but anyone born overseas of at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen. [Did anyone see this paper in November? 2011?]

Congressional Research Service was working legally during the time that George Romney was running, and look how they changed their tune. George Romney certainly understood the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. It appears the democrats did as well. Now the Republicans won’t go after Obama!

They’re trying to make some kind of false analogy: GEORGE Romney was born in another country and BHO Sr. was born in another country. Both had sons born (allegedly) in the USA. So, they want to CONFUSE readers when the truth is that George Romney’s parents were US citizens, George Romney was a US citizen, and Mitt’s mother was a US citizen. BHO Sr. was NEVER a US citizen or even a permanent resident of the USA.

As for any analogy between George Romney himself and Barry Obama: They say that George was probably a natural born citizen (I disagree) and so they IMPLY that even IF Barry was born in Kenya, he’s a NBC, too. Well, no he’s not because there’s that little technicality about the AGE OF THE US CITIZEN PARENT AT THE TIME OF THE OVERSEAS BIRTH. Barry’s father was NEVER a US citizen (unlike George Romney’s two US citizen parents) AND Barry’s mother was TOO YOUNG TO CONVEY US CITIZENSHIP TO HER SON IF HE WAS BORN IN KENYA. That’s the law that allowed simple CITIZENSHIP to pass to children of citizens born overseas. Besides which, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a “natural born” citizen to become one via ANY act of Congress. Natural born is natural born. It’s an oxymoron to state that any LAW can convey “natural born” citizenship. If you need a law, it’s not “natural”. Even in the Constitution, the Founders did not convey “natural born” citizenship upon those who were only citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. That’s because they could not. Only natural born citizens were natural born–meaning born in the USA to TWO US citizen parents. Someone whose natural born status is beyond doubt.

I wonder if this writer read the research we presented here FIRST, exclusively? Perhaps not, based upon what he DID NOT write about. He ignored the main point of my post–how Romney “birthers” were not excoriated and ridiculed in the media then. In fact, the media took the issue of Romney’s potential ineligibility EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY, even postulating the dire consequences of having a POTUS later proved ineligible. The writer says allegations about Romney’s ineligibility “echo” “birther” complaints today. Why, only in one sense–that they raised the same logical questions and issued similar dire warnings. But the HUGE difference is that it was MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA AND LAWYERS (the ESTABLISHMENT, in ’60s speak) who were raising the issue and many, many news articles ran in the mainstream media, reporting about the controversy! Fast forward to today and tell us how many SERIOUS news articles address the issue of Barry’s ineligibility?

When will Reuters ask why Barry doesn’t distance HIMSELF from “Reverend” Wright, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan? ALL supporters of Barry.

This is the same article as the one from msnbc above. Only they didn’t show Mitt’s birth certificate. They add a statement at the end if you want to see it but the link isn’t live. His BC was previously added to Miri’s article above.

We need to find the Congressional Record from November, 2011 – that is the one msnbc author is referring to, and it is one that we haven’t seen. The first two were not to be made public, so it is assumed that this one that msnbc got was not public either. The first two did not mention Minor v Happersett intentionally.

But it appears this last report tried to falsely change the meaning of natural born citizen.

“In a paper in November aimed at clarifying presidential eligibility, the Congressional Research Service declared that the practical, legal meaning of “natural born citizen” would “most likely include” not only anyone born on U.S. soil but anyone born overseas of at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen. “

Here is the Congressional Record but I haven’t read it yet. It is from November 14, 2011. It is 144 pages, and in a quick search, natural born did not come up. No search terms brought up anything to do with NBC. These may not be what the author is referring to – it could be another one of the private memos.

This is an article from Atlantic weekly I found on Yahoo this morning entitled Ask a Birther what do you think of Mitt Romney’s birth certificate? (close to that, anyway); At the end the writer asks birthers who want their opinions published to email them. I couldn’t get the “email us” link to work but if anyone who can give a rational , well-reasoned answer wants to try…..http://news.yahoo.com/ask-birther-convinced-mitt-romneys-birth-certificate-192823835.html

My own answer would be a) No, not convinced by this birth certification alone and would want the nominating committees to request a certified copy of the original directly from the issuing agency and the same for Obama b) I would want certification that both of his parents were U.S. citizents (no, not necessarily “natural born” ) at the time of his birth AND the same for Obama; and THEN I would be convinced.
OF course it’s a snarky “article”; And frankly the examples they give of “birther” responses don’t do much to further our cause. Would love to see something better.

I would tell this Elspeth Reeve that Romney’s “birth certificate” is no more acceptable as legal evidence than Barry’s. They should dare/ask BOTH of the candidates to have their respective states send CERTIFIED copies of their ORIGINAL birth certificates directly to the Secretaries of State of every state and also swear that they are eligible under penalty of perjury. Romney would. Would Barry? We know the answer to that by now.

The only difference I see is that the MEDIA actually ASKED for Romney’s birth certificate. I’m still waiting for them to ask for Barry’s. And I bet you anything that the media have already gone to the state of Michigan to GET proof that the state did produce this SFCOLB and I also bet you that they got an answer from the state because if they did not and if they had any inkling that the SFCOLB for Romney is bogus, we would have seen it on front pages all over the world by now.

Ancestry.com has a passenger list from the ship Leviathan with George W Romney sailing from Cherbourg france to NYC at age 21 Listed under U.S. Citizens. under the passport section it says “105 London” and “Born to American Parents July 8 1907″

Qualifications for President and the Natural Born Citizenship Eligibility RequirementNovember 14, 2011Jack Maskell, attorney (the same one that put out the false information in the previous two memos). 53 pages

Just start reading through this and it is so full of the Left’s arguments that it is sickening. Recent lawsuits are mentioned up to November as well as old ones.

Summary Pg 2

The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.

Pg 44 Starts the NBC argument as relates to Obama.

Dual Citizenship.
Merely because a child born within the United States could have, under the operation of foreign law, been a citizen also of that foreign nation because of a parent’s nationality, citizenship, or place of birth (i.e., “dual citizenship”), would not affect the status of that child as a U.S. citizen “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal nationality laws, nor under Article II of the Constitution. The citizenship laws, rights, or recognitions of other nations could not influence and impact the United States’ own determination of who its citizens “at birth” would be, that is, who would be a “natural born” citizen, as the question of citizenship and categories of citizenship are a function of “municipal law”—the internal law of every country, as opposed to matters of international law or foreign law.

Congressional Research Service Releases Disinformation Report on Natural Born Citizen
Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Protecting Obama: Congressional Research Service Releases Error and Disinformation Ridden Report on Natural Born Citizen Requirement

~UPDATE: Comment from Atty Mario Apuzzo about the new Maskell CRS Memo from his legal blog:This new Jack Maskell memo is nothing but a cut and paste from Obot web sites.He stamps everything that breathes as a “natural born Citizen.” Mr. Maskell is a master at hiding how he confounds and conflates a “natural born Citizen” with “citizen of the United States.” I am working on some essays right now which I will be publishing shortly. After doing that, I will address Mr. Maskell’s new memo.

Mitt Romney is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military. He was born in the USA to two U.S. Citizen parents.

See and download Mitt’s genealogy chart and citizenship status analysis for him and his parents at this link:

Thanks Sue for tipping us that Free Republic is running this post now and also thanks to diggity for posting it there. The research from this post took a long time to do and we were the first to dig all this up, although others have cannibalized it without attribution, so we thank diggity for crediting us.

McCain is a natural born citizen. Those born in Panama– Canal Zone or Republic of– are specifically addressed in U.S. Code. I just put the details into a post on the Dorner case because he brought this issue up in his manifesto.

True, but until the SCOTUS provides clarification of what a “natural born citizen” is, we still don’t know. We do, however, have indications that it means someone born on US soil to two US citizens. A person born overseas to a citizen may be a citizen, but not a NATURAL BORN citizen.

Unless you were born in Panama or I don’t see why this would have been specifically addressed elsewhere in federal law. And at the time that the Constitution was written the Founding Fathers understood that a natural born citizen was someone born to American parents even on foreign soil. Even so, the debate goes on…